The US National Security Strategy announced by President Trump at the end of 2017 was aimed at “redefining its cyber security mission” and stemming the tide of nation-state attacks on the US. This has include the open use of cyber weapons to influence,deter and punish other nation states. Much of the information we have about recent US cyber activities has come from unnamed, but most likely authorised, government sources which have been used as a foreign policy too to signal to adversaries that certain actions are infringing upon US national interests. By 2013 US domestic networks were overwhelmed by constant attack from sophisticated nation-state actors. Hackers stole millions of sensitive records from the Office of Personnel Management, gained access to White House networks and destroyed dozens of computers at Sony Pictures from thousands of miles away. At that time the US Department of Defense’s own cyber teams couldn’t hit back or work on enemy networks abroad because the rules for such operations were incredibly stringent. In fact, one US senator said DoD didn’t conduct an offensive operation for five years.
That’s not to say the United States sat idly by in cyberspace, experts pointed to covert strikes and intrusions, but it does mean the Pentagon rarely or never used cyber operations as an overt response or to flex its power. The way Cyber Command meets those goals is through persistent engagement, which means challenging adversary activities wherever they operate, however, cyber tools and networks are a limited commodity; publicising them makes them harder to use a second time. The hope is that using this scarce commodity effectively will persuade potential challengers of American resolve. This represents a shift from the Obama administration, which was far more reticent to combine covert cyber activities with more overt signaling. Surely, the United States undertook secret operations to degrade, disrupt, destroy, manipulate, operations in cyberspace. The most famous Obama-era cyber operation was Stuxnet, a worm that caused Iranian nuclear centrifuges to tear themselves apart. Obama Administration officials engaged only reluctantly in overt signaling. They officially denied involvement, only talking with select reporters on deep background and after the operation was being discussed in the media.
In comparison, the Trump administration is more openly using cyberspace activities to signal to adversaries that when certain lines are crossed it will result in consequences. Examples include operations against Iran after the Saudi oil attack in August 2019 and after the drone downing in September; and operations against Russia after the 2018 midterm elections.The administration is clearly signaling to Russa in its efforts to deter Moscow’s meddling in the 2020 elections. Officials have told media outlets of efforts to develop information warfare tactics that target Russia’s senior leaders and elites. Such open declarations represent even larger costs because they cannot be easily backed away from. If it works and the threat proves credible enough to deter Russian meddling in the upcoming elections, the US will likely continue with this type signalingThe new philosophy has engendered praise, criticism and confusion among experts. One lawmaker said the White House is stonewalling oversight of the new operations. Academics have questioned whether the strategy will indeed slow hacking from the United States’ enemies.
Because of the sensitivity of operational details, the Pentagon rarely discusses how the new strategies have worked. But based on interviews with military officials and several cyber experts this is the story of how, in two years, a new strategy is forcing the national security community to rethink cyber operations and the strategy’s long-term effects. Ultimately, cyber is one tool in the US arsenal and experts have cautioned that it will be hard to point directly to a more assertive cyber posture as the one thing that changes the calculus of adversaries.
https://www.cybersecurityintelligence.com/blog/us-cyber-command-is-a-tool-of-foreign-policy--4753.html
Read: US Cyber Command Hacked ISIS
That’s not to say the United States sat idly by in cyberspace, experts pointed to covert strikes and intrusions, but it does mean the Pentagon rarely or never used cyber operations as an overt response or to flex its power. The way Cyber Command meets those goals is through persistent engagement, which means challenging adversary activities wherever they operate, however, cyber tools and networks are a limited commodity; publicising them makes them harder to use a second time. The hope is that using this scarce commodity effectively will persuade potential challengers of American resolve. This represents a shift from the Obama administration, which was far more reticent to combine covert cyber activities with more overt signaling. Surely, the United States undertook secret operations to degrade, disrupt, destroy, manipulate, operations in cyberspace. The most famous Obama-era cyber operation was Stuxnet, a worm that caused Iranian nuclear centrifuges to tear themselves apart. Obama Administration officials engaged only reluctantly in overt signaling. They officially denied involvement, only talking with select reporters on deep background and after the operation was being discussed in the media.
In comparison, the Trump administration is more openly using cyberspace activities to signal to adversaries that when certain lines are crossed it will result in consequences. Examples include operations against Iran after the Saudi oil attack in August 2019 and after the drone downing in September; and operations against Russia after the 2018 midterm elections.The administration is clearly signaling to Russa in its efforts to deter Moscow’s meddling in the 2020 elections. Officials have told media outlets of efforts to develop information warfare tactics that target Russia’s senior leaders and elites. Such open declarations represent even larger costs because they cannot be easily backed away from. If it works and the threat proves credible enough to deter Russian meddling in the upcoming elections, the US will likely continue with this type signalingThe new philosophy has engendered praise, criticism and confusion among experts. One lawmaker said the White House is stonewalling oversight of the new operations. Academics have questioned whether the strategy will indeed slow hacking from the United States’ enemies.
Because of the sensitivity of operational details, the Pentagon rarely discusses how the new strategies have worked. But based on interviews with military officials and several cyber experts this is the story of how, in two years, a new strategy is forcing the national security community to rethink cyber operations and the strategy’s long-term effects. Ultimately, cyber is one tool in the US arsenal and experts have cautioned that it will be hard to point directly to a more assertive cyber posture as the one thing that changes the calculus of adversaries.
https://www.cybersecurityintelligence.com/blog/us-cyber-command-is-a-tool-of-foreign-policy--4753.html
Read: US Cyber Command Hacked ISIS
No comments :
Post a Comment